Sacramento Safeway Had Duty to Protect Woman From Slip And Fall, Part 7 of 9

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Actionable negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, the defendant breached the duty, and the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Pamela W. v. Millson (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 950, 956. Although a store owner is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons, the owner does owe the patrons a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe. Moore v. Walmart (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 72,476. A store satisfies its duty of care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers. Ibid; Adams v. Dow Hotel (1938) 25 Cal.App.2d 51.

An owner or occupier of land is not liable for injury resulting from a dangerous condition that it had no knowledge of unless the condition had existed for such a length of time that, had the owner or occupier exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises, it would have discovered the condition in time to remedy or warn, prior to the injury. Id. Evidence that a dangerous condition existed only a short period of time before a fall is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that Defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Perez v. Ow, supra; Givertz v. Boy’s Market, Inc. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 827.

To establish the element of a breach of duty, plaintiff has the burden of proof of presenting competent evidence which demonstrates that defendant had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition sufficiently in advance of the accident which caused the injury, or that the particular dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, if defendant had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises, defendant would have discovered the dangerous condition in time to remedy it or to give warning before the injury occurred. Oldenburg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 733, 744. (See Part 8 of 9.)